|
So the greens are shutting the barn door behind them basically? To what end? Do they likely think they'll go back to being the middle faction both sides need to wheel and deal instead of the current 'feral' crossbench?
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
Jintor posted:So the greens are shutting the barn door behind them basically? What an odd metaphor
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:Debate SSM on Thursday. Last sitting day before the budget and likely before the election. Post your new watch Starshark posted:Can't even keep a rabbit in QLD what kind of hellhole state is it. We take nrl pretty seriously
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Spudd posted:What an odd metaphor sorry english isn't technically my first language i can't actually speak my first language any more but never mind that
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Jintor posted:So the greens are shutting the barn door behind them basically? No. It just shuts the door on dodgy preferencing. The real problem in the system outside of what electorate system you think is fair, is that preference deals are done behind the voters back. OPV at least gives some power back to the voter by forcing their preferences to be actually honoured by the parties, not a pool with which to make deals with which is essentially what Leyonhjelm did. No more group voting for the Senate. If you preference a party by putting them 2-6 that order will apply for your vote, and once done, it's done.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Jintor posted:hmmm It's a question of ends vs means. Looking purely at the means, this is an unambiguously good change: lovely preference deals that are opaque to the general public will be a thing of the past and voting will be both simpler and better representative of the voter's intentions. The ends however are much more debatable - those lovely preference deals tended to elect people who were at the least better than the LNP and in some instances better than basically every other politician (eg Ricky Muir). So because of a lovely, non-representative voting mechanism we accidentally elected some pretty decent people to represent their interests. The question then boils down to whether you think the good results are worth the objectively bad voting mechanism. The Greens said no.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
Ok. Thanks for the rundown. I think I have a better grasp on it than I did this morning, at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Tasmanian Premier Will Hodgman tells Labor leader Bryan Green 'slit your wrists, mate' Thats out auspol!
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:The longish answer from the ABC site: It's not gormless, but it is extremely cynical, which is why it's so irritating to watch Penny Wong act so high and mighty today. Essentially it's just procedural maneuvers to try and give Labor's inner-city MPs some material for their anti-Green pamphlet campaigns. The only reason Labor is opposing the Senate reforms is because it gives them an opportunity to go on and on about the LIBERAL GREENS ALLIANCE. Luckily for them, some idiots and paid hacks like Van Badham, who is continuing to beat the world's deadest horse in the Guardian today, have fallen for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:The ends however are much more debatable - those lovely preference deals tended to elect people who were at the least better than the LNP and in some instances better than basically every other politician (eg Ricky Muir). So because of a lovely, non-representative voting mechanism we accidentally elected some pretty decent people to represent their interests. Or we could elect Steve Fielding and more David Leonhyelms. People opposed to these reforms seem to be treating the 20% or so who vote minor parties as a block vote, as if someone who voted Socialist Alliance would be equally happy with a Rise Up Australia senator, or an Australian Christians voter would be happy with their vote ending up with the Sex Party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
No ty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
This is gonna sound like a dumb question, but I'm actually curious. What is the point of the government being able to ask questions in QT? Every time it seems to go: Member for whereever: "Can the minister for such and such update us as to the exceptional progress being made by such an exceptional leader on such an important project?" Minister for such and such: "I thank the member for whereever for their question, insert compliment to member or their electorate, recite slogans." Was there ever a time when the govt's questions during QT weren't just two MPs openly speech-loving each other? I'm reasonably new to this auspol thing, but wouldn't that time be better spent with non-government MPs asking the questions?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
 Was going to vote for the Greens at the Brisbane City Council Elections this Saturday but now I guess not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Quasimango posted:The only reason Labor is opposing the Senate reforms is because it gives them an opportunity to go on and on about the LIBERAL GREENS ALLIANCE. Luckily for them, some idiots and paid hacks like Van Badham, who is continuing to beat the world's deadest horse in the Guardian today, have fallen for it. Oooh speaking of that, she got owned by an electoral expert on twitter about it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
SeekOtherCandidate posted:*frrrrrrrrrrrt* Anything wrong with what I said? Jintor posted:So the greens are shutting the barn door behind them basically? Yup. They're closing the door behind them to stop any competitors getting a foothold on the crossbench. Make sure the LNP stay in power long enough for them to slowly erode the ALP vote and ensure they are seen as the negotiators for legislation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:
Yeah, Stop the Kuraby Mosque, vote ALA
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:This is gonna sound like a dumb question, but I'm actually curious. They're called Dorothy Dixer questions, after an American columnist who would make up her own questions to answer. It's an Australian convention that allows a government minister to answer questions in Parliament that voters want answered, but as these questions are usually put by a member of the same party it is indeed devolved to speech-loving, and too often an excuse to waste QT for attacks on the Opposition. Everyone hates it because it's bullshit but neither major party will ban it under Standing Orders because they want to do it to each other.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:Solidifies a 3 party system in the Senate. Xenophon will slowly lose his spot after a high water mark this election. It will now basically be impossible for an independent or small party gain a foothold. If the ALP/LNP did this 50 years ago there would be no Greens. In the past 50 years there have been three significant third parties in the Senate: the DLP, the Democrats, and the Greens. The first two started as high-profile splinters from other parties (the DLP from Labor, the Democrats from the Liberals), and the Greens only got significant national representation after they spent a decade building up their profile (and representation) at various state levels, including some that use STV. The same applies for most other long-term independents; either they had a strong regional profile beforehand (Xenophon, Reg Turnbull), or they split off prominently from another party (Harradine). Grass-roots parties don't start at a national level, and so levelling that complaint against the new system is a bit rich. Bob Brown got 80% of a quota on first preferences in 1996, and Xenophon got more than a full quota in 2007; the changes can't prevent someone like them getting elected, but they will reduce the chance of the Madigans and the Days getting in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Everyone hates it because it's bullshit but neither major party will ban it under Standing Orders because they want to do it to each other. jfc, what a joke. I'm getting fairly tired of the govt blaming Labor, after the coalition has been in power for almost three years. I mean, I was getting tired of it two years ago but watching QT today just brought it all back! Thanks for the info 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Everyone hates it because it's bullshit but neither major party will ban it under Standing Orders because they want to do it to each other. this kinda thing seems to happen a lot. weird
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
What does the federal ALP, in it's current form, stand for? I'm jfc because I can tell what other political party (e.g. Greens) stand for but I'm having a hard time with Labor
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:This is gonna sound like a dumb question, but I'm actually curious. It's democracy in action. The government is held to account in that they must answer question presented to it in question time and cannot mislead Parliament. It's a broader reflection of the governments responsibility to parliament. Whilst it's still important ministers are less accountable for their portfolios today. In the past it was expected that they would resign on failures in their departments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:09
|
|
|
blurred party lines
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Recoome posted:What does the federal ALP, in it's current form, stand for?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
wee waa
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
Recoome posted:What does the federal ALP, in it's current form, stand for? At the moment they stand for being a small target and hoping the LNP is incompetent enough to let them get elected. Also, carrying forward almost everything the LNP does in order to try and make Murdoch senpai love them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Just ordered some thai food. Bloke comes from around the corner within 10 mins, food in hand, gives a little bow. Wouldn't get service like that under a Greens government.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:17
|
|
|
bell jar posted:Just ordered some thai food. Bloke comes from around the corner within 10 mins, food in hand, gives a little bow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
Nibbles! posted:It's democracy in action. The government is held to account in that they must answer question presented to it in question time and cannot mislead Parliament. Ministers are routinely called upon to account for their answers to the Opposition too, so Dorothy Dixers aren't the single source of information or Ministerial honesty. And given that they only pay lip service to the actual answer before carrying on an attack that is connected to the question by the barest of compliance under Standing Orders, it's hardly a test of their honesty is it? Dixers are these days there for two reasons only 1) to attack the Opposition 2) to waste QT time to prevent the Opposition asking questions they really don't want to answer. It's not "democracy in action" it's "bullshit in action", there is little accountability, in fact I can't remember anyone getting in any serious trouble for "answering" a Dixer in decades unless someone can point one out.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Nibbles! posted:It's democracy in action. The government is held to account in that they must answer question presented to it in question time and cannot mislead Parliament. Now you can't even get them to resign when there's an AFP investigation into them personally. Iran is refusing to take back our forcibly repatriated declined refugee status people. So now they're stuck on hell island forever or until they decide it's going to be super safe to go back to Iran. Where they fled from. On the upside Greens and Labor have said they will block any chance of the budget being brought forward which means no DD election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
Recoome posted:What does the federal ALP, in it's current form, stand for? From what I can tell from their recent campaign against the Greens, they're an Adult Government that will Stop The Boats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:If Harradine could last for decades there's no reason to think Xenophon couldn't. Yeah, what this essentially does is remove the strategy used to leverage a very minor proportion of votes into an actual seat. It doesn't stop non-major parties from getting in, it just takes away that particular means by which a lot of them do. So sure, it'll mean less minor parties get through. But what it also means is that the minor parties that actually do get through will be the ones people actually voted for. We'll be seeing a lot less people like Family First, who are actually pretty unpopular (especially in SA where they're actually elected) but got seats because both Liberal and Labor gave them relatively good preference deals. EDIT: It'll probably also clean up the senate voting sheet, too. It'll knock out the dummy political parties that are set up specifically to funnel preferences into another party (I think Lionhelm got in on this strategy?). And really, the lower that number the better just for logistical purposes. Cleretic fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:30
|
|
|
Remember that this is just a Senate reform too. Preferencing is still just as dodgy in the HR (eg Family First are a contributor to Liberal votes).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:Yup. They're closing the door behind them to stop any competitors getting a foothold on the crossbench. Make sure the LNP stay in power long enough for them to slowly erode the ALP vote and ensure they are seen as the negotiators for legislation. why is it that the ALP vote is eroding, do you think
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:EDIT: It'll probably also clean up the senate voting sheet, too. It'll knock out the dummy political parties that are set up specifically to funnel preferences into another party (I think Lionhelm got in on this strategy?). ewe2 posted:Remember that this is just a Senate reform too. Preferencing is still just as dodgy in the HR (eg Family First are a contributor to Liberal votes). Less dodgy, since there are no GVTs. I read some stuff recently about how strong preferences flows are / how much people ignore HTV cards, but I can't find it immediately.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:46
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:why is it that the ALP vote is eroding, do you think This is the best I can find easily, http://australianpolitics.com/2013/02/25/alp-federal-election-results-since-1910.html, but broadly it isn't eroding yet. They're a major party, it goes up when they form Government, it goes down when they don't. The result at this election will be an interesting one to watch, how much Green vote bleeds to Malcolm and if the base follow them. There is less protest vote this election, so it will be interesting how it plays out for the Green vote. Something Greens supporters (if they get what they wish for) will come to realise. When you Govern a country, you need to Govern a country, not 8.65% of it. Sometimes that means making unpopular decisions, and if the ALP and Greens swap spots, the ALP will complain about, get a protest vote at the next election (see the 2010 results). It appears the Greens will do a preference swap with the LNP. LNP preference them in marginal ALP/Green seats and in return the Greens will ensure no HTVs are handed out in ALP/LNP marginal seats. Let's watch the Greens win Malcolm a few more terms in Government. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
Rightio, so I finished my run around with centrelink today. Keep in mind, at no point was I ever asking for money, I was looking for assistance in finding more work. First, went into an office and talked to someone who set up an interview with some kind of job service agency and gave me some ID. Second, went to the job agency, where I was told that unless I was receiving payments they can't do anything for me. Then I had a phone interview saying I wasn't eligible for payments (that I wasn't seeking) and I should apply through jobs through websites like Seek.com  Thanks for wasting three large amounts of time I could have spent doing something productive, like applying for more jobs, or tying a noose.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
EvilElmo posted:This is the best I can find easily, http://australianpolitics.com/2013/02/25/alp-federal-election-results-since-1910.html, but broadly it isn't eroding yet. They're a major party, it goes up when they form Government, it goes down when they don't. The result at this election will be an interesting one to watch, how much Green vote bleeds to Malcolm and if the base follow them. There is less protest vote this election, so it will be interesting how it plays out for the Green vote. ALP: Making the difficult, unpopular decisions like torturing children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 02:27 |
|
|
That's all they do there anyway, they will not help you find jobs unless it's pickpacking and in literal woopwoop for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 09:05
|
|